Talk:Risk-aware consensual kink

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New section

There are so many WJDI on this page that it is impossible for the unkinked reader to comprehend. Patrick0Moran 05:02, 4 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Am I supposed to know what "WJDI" means? From context, I wonder if it is a self-reference. -jholman

@Patrick0Moran: Can you resolve the abbreviation "WJDI", as well as the abbreviations "EJDU" and "DJEM" in your cryptic edit comment? I really can't figure out what they might refer to. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I can't really check at work, but do the two links go to the same text or two different texts with the same title? ♥ «Charles A. L.» 14:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm home, I just checked. Two different texts. Heaven knows what autocomplete is now going to show my stepdaughter.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 01:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article/Reference Disagreement

The essence of the argument made in the references for using the term RACK, over SSC, is that very little play is objectively, proveably, utterly Safe and/or Sane, and that calling one's play SSC is a bit dishonest, or at least disingenuous. The article does touch on it, but seems to my reading to emphasize an interpretation that RACK implies edgier play: "[RACK] expands ... to include ... edgeplay and play that is engaged in without safewords". With respect, no no no. Whatever play you think is edgy, someone somewhere is doing it and calling themselves SSC, right? It's not that subscribing to RACK (as contrasted with SSC) is correlated with edgier play, it's that subscribing to RACK is (supposedly) correlated with a conscious awareness that risk is a continuum, not a clear line. To mutili-quote one of the references, there's a reason modern sex educators talk about "safer" sex.

Also, I don't think it's quite right to say "an SSC person would do X, a RACK person would do Y". I mean, aside from being a demonstrably false description of the actual use of SSC in practice, it just seems better to describe an analysis or a perspective as SSC/RACK, rather than a person. Maybe this is overly picky of me.

Also, the references are very useful articles, but I feel they do not support the points that they are connected to.

I thought about just editing all this in, but I couldn't figure out how to do so gently, and didn't want to totally re-write, given my limited knowledge, and lack of scene-expertise.

-jholman


I did a small change of the philosofy section to rectify the problems you had its not perfect but it fixes some of the problems with the page.

/Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.200.175 (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh how things change after four years. (I revised this article way back in 2006 to survive an AfD)
jholman is absolutely right in pointing out that there were perhaps some POV problems with the article, and in hindsight such a black & white comparison is a bit unfair. I'm gonna take a look at the article and the sources added since I last gave it a once over, and see if I can give both sides a fair shake. -- RoninBK T C 07:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, revised and probably more accurate to the true spirit of the source material. I know I risk POV in a couple of points, but I feel what I have is mostly accurate. I may revive Safe, sane and consensual from its status as a redirect this week so that between the two a NPOV picture can be painted. Comments and criticism welcome. -- RoninBK T C 11:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sooooo.... about 10 years after that.... I am some stranger who came along... I think maybe the SSC / RACK uncertainty was different back then and now the community clearly uses them both to describe different kinds of consent. So I am going to simply put up RACK with a direct to that page. I think it outlines the importance of addressing risk and consent to be used together. The most neutral point of view for the article is to remove any perspective about SCC and just replace it with a call out of RACK.
Hope my edit helps... I hope someone will change it back if it doesn't 2600:1700:5C50:9340:B8A5:56E4:EF61:ABF9 (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links

There isn't a solid reference to PRICK here; one of the citations goes to a dead page/porn ad parking lot domain. Is [1] usable as a Wiki reference? I don't know if Kinkly is considered authoritative. I'd never heard of it until today.

References

  1. ^ "What is Personal Responsibility, Informed Consensual Kink (PRICK)?". Kinkly. Retrieved 13 January 2019.


Dead links fixed, with archive url and other archive-* data --Thnidu (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added this citation for PRICK. I don't know about Kinkly either, but I'm not in the scene and wouldn't expect to. --Thnidu (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Risk-aware_consensual_kink"